[Archived] Speed Camera's Again

[ABBEY]

they got thru tocks easier and quicker in the horse and cart days.

[thenodrog]

sounds like it. People are going to fast over them or on the aproach to them.

Is that simple enough for you? Go slower, no need to break, or break sooner, and lo, no damage.

or you could just put a camera in because that wont knacker your suspension

It's brake not break Flopsy........... or do you know better about that too?

[Flopsy]

breaking the suspension. damn you and your correct use of English

Still, it doesnt take away from me being right, slow down before the humps, and you wont damage

the car.

But you know that, which is why you ignored the point.

[Paul]

Apparently the damage is caused by hitting the bumps whilst braking with the suspension already compressed. Or do you know better Flopsy?

Thinking about Tockholes and the frequency of the speed humps on that particular road surely the solution is to drive at the calmed speed the humps are designed to enforce. Accelerating towards a hump, braking and damaging suspension is the driver's fault / perogative.

[jim mk2]

To get rid of bad drivers, all drivers should have to do a re-test every 5 years. There would be far less cars on the road and far less bad drivers.

There'd be far less bad drivers on the road if everyone owned their own cars. Most of the worst examples of bad driving are company car drivers or van drivers.

And yes, retesting is a very good idea.

[Al]

Al, have you checked the accident stats for that location? A FOI to the Local Safety Camera Partnership should tell you whether or not its been located for revenue only purposes.

Yes, I wouldn't have quoted it if I hadn't. I also live within half a mile of it. There have been accidents on that road but nowhere near that camera.

Incidentally I have not been caught by it and to my knowledge nobody in the village has either. It's just a cash cow for the unaware.

[Al]

breaking the suspension. damn you and your correct use of English

Still, it doesnt take away from me being right, slow down before the humps, and you wont damage

the car.

But you know that, which is why you ignored the point.

The point is that you should be able to drive over the speed humps at the speed limit selected for that piece of road, which you certainly can not, without damaging your car.

If you are travelling at the speed limit why should you be forced to slow down? It means you are being punished WITHOUT breaking the law. Surely that can not be right and you should be able to sue the authorities for any damage caused.

[thenodrog]

There'd be far less bad drivers on the road if everyone owned their own cars. Most of the worst examples of bad driving are company car drivers or van drivers.

Strongly disagree. In fact thats rubbish and you know it. The worst drivers I see can by and large can be classified in the following groups.

1. Young lads in Corsa's, Micra's and similar 'shopping cars'.

2. Young IndoPaks exhibiting supreme one upmanship by sharing the cost and use of ludicrously high powered luxury cars.

btw Anybody work in insurance? How does the insurance work in these instances?

3. Silver tops both male and female and of absolutely any ethnic origin.

4. Ladies with letter box style headgear.

5. Learners and their driving instructors.

6. Taxi and bus drivers.

These groups provide 90% of the worst examples and I'm not having any different no matter how many times you choose to repeat it.

[yoda]

The point is that you should be able to drive over the speed humps at the speed limit selected for that piece of road, which you certainly can not, without damaging your car.

If you are travelling at the speed limit why should you be forced to slow down? It means you are being punished WITHOUT breaking the law. Surely that can not be right and you should be able to sue the authorities for any damage caused.

Good point there Al,

People will wake up one day and realise its all a con to raise revenue, why some people have started calling them safety cameras is beyond me, they are triggered by straight line motion of a certain velocity, ie nothing to do with safety

[den]

People will wake up one day and realise its all a con to raise revenue, why some people have started calling them safety cameras is beyond me, they are triggered by straight line motion of a certain velocity, ie nothing to do with safety

Speed nothing to do with safety Yoda? The higher the "velocity", the more dangerous that body is, eh?

[yoda]

Speed nothing to do with safety Yoda? The higher the "velocity", the more dangerous that body is, eh?

Absolutly not!

Control is the key to safety, all studies and risk assesments confirm this

[jim mk2]

Speed nothing to do with safety Yoda? The higher the "velocity", the more dangerous that body is, eh?

Wasting your time den.

[ABBEY]

JUST LIKE I WAS I N TRYING TO GET TO ANSWER QUESTIONS LAST WEEK

[colin]

Good point there Al,

People will wake up one day and realise its all a con to raise revenue, why some people have started calling them safety cameras is beyond me, they are triggered by straight line motion of a certain velocity, ie nothing to do with safety

Yoda,

Al's comment was about road humps. Nothing to do with safety/speed cameras. Nothing to do with "revenue."

As for me. I live on a road which has humps installed. I love them. Why on earth anyone can't slow down to 15 - 20mph for a short distance is beyond me.

Can any of you anti camera & humps people explain why you just can't slow down for a couple of minutes? What is it that you do that you need to drive so quickly? What would you do with the seconds you save?

[jim mk2]

Six killed in head-on collision in Nottinghamshire at the weekend.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-ne...91466-22929882/

Just a little reminder to all those idiots on the road who flout the law, drive too fast, refuse to slow down, take unnecessary risks and cause accidents .....

[jim mk2]

Strongly disagree. In fact thats rubbish and you know it. The worst drivers I see can by and large can be classified in the following groups.

1. Young lads in Corsa's, Micra's and similar 'shopping cars'.

2. Young IndoPaks exhibiting supreme one upmanship by sharing the cost and use of ludicrously high powered luxury cars.

btw Anybody work in insurance? How does the insurance work in these instances?

3. Silver tops both male and female and of absolutely any ethnic origin.

4. Ladies with letter box style headgear.

5. Learners and their driving instructors.

6. Taxi and bus drivers.

These groups provide 90% of the worst examples and I'm not having any different no matter how many times you choose to repeat it.

Me thinks you do protest too much theno. Hammer / nails / head ?

I stand by what I said : driving standards are linked to ownership. The worst drivers in my experience are fleet / company car drivers and van drivers.

Both problems are easily solved. The tax breaks that make the former so attractive should be abolished and the latter should have speed limiters similar to lorries.

[BiggusLaddus]

Six killed in head-on collision in Nottinghamshire at the weekend.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-ne...91466-22929882/

Just a little reminder to all those idiots on the road who flout the law, drive too fast, refuse to slow down, take unnecessary risks and cause accidents .....

You have absolutley no idea who, or what caused that crash and yet you choose to highlight the recent deaths of six people to make your simplistic, emotive point.

Congratulations.

[jim mk2]

You have absolutley no idea who, or what caused that crash and yet you choose to highlight the recent deaths of six people to make your simplistic, emotive point.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Next time you contribute something worthwhile I'll congratulate you too.

[BiggusLaddus]

Me thinks you do protest too much theno. Hammer / nails / head ?

I stand by what I said : driving standards are linked to ownership. The worst drivers in my experience are fleet / company car drivers and van drivers.

Both problems are easily solved. The tax breaks that make the former so attractive should be abolished and the latter should have speed limiters similar to lorries.

Tax breaks? What tax breaks are they? My company car (required as I do ~25,000 business miles/year) costs me thousands of pounds in tax. It is an unassuming mondeo diesel and it wipes out almost all of my tax free salary, anyone with any kind of luxury company car (or even anything with a petrol engine over 2.0l) will almost certainly be in a negative tax band.

Company car tax rules changed over 10yrs ago, you are seriously behind the times if you think that they are an attractive perk.

[jim mk2]

Tax breaks? What tax breaks are they? My company car (required as I do ~25,000 business miles/year) costs me thousands of pounds in tax. It is an unassuming mondeo diesel and it wipes out almost all of my tax free salary, anyone with any kind of luxury company car (or even anything with a petrol engine over 2.0l) will almost certainly be in a negative tax band.

Company car tax rules changed over 10yrs ago, you are seriously behind the times if you think that they are an attractive perk.

Hand it back in then and drive your own car.

Or are you too thick to work that one out ?

[BiggusLaddus]

Hand it back in then and drive your own car.

Or are you too thick to work that one out ?

Not an option, the company requires that I use their car. Besides that, the car is required as a tool of my job just as much as all of the stuff in my boot. I do roughly 100 personal miles a month in it (recorded as I pay for the fuel I use in my own time), so the benefit I am receiving (and thus paying for) from the car is insurance and road tax for those 100miles/month.

I'm not complaining about any of this, I took the job knowing this in advance so I have no complaint to make, I am just responding to your statement that company cars are an attractive perk due to the tax breaks.

[jim mk2]

just responding to your statement that company cars are an attractive perk due to the tax breaks.

They are a very attractive tax break, paid for by other taxpayers.

[thenodrog]

Speed nothing to do with safety Yoda? The higher the "velocity", the more dangerous that body is, eh?

err..... Whose Law of Physics are you quoting there Den?

[thenodrog]

Six killed in head-on collision in Nottinghamshire at the weekend.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-ne...91466-22929882/

Just a little reminder to all those idiots on the road who flout the law, drive too fast, refuse to slow down, take unnecessary risks and cause accidents .....

I stand by what I said : driving standards are linked to ownership. The worst drivers in my experience are fleet / company car drivers and van drivers.

Oh kinell! Just how thick are you? I hate to make a point out of a tragedy but succesive posts completely contradict your opinion. Which of those was the company car?

Can you please mature enough and widen your tunnel vision in order to to make responsible and educated points instead of continual tongue in cheek, response provoking wind ups ?

[yoda]

Wasting your time den.

As you are.

You have no idea what the criterior is for safety, look around your nursing home and check out the risk assesments that have or should have been done by law.

You might learn something about safety and control.

I will point out again that I am not anti speed cameras, they just do not do the job that the government says they are for, if they did nobody would get a ticket for speeding, which is the other point I was making, self regulation does not work, and that should be obvious to the whole world with the financial sector a shining example.

May I suggest you and Den carry out a risk assesment on the cameras and link it to the job they are supposed to be doing.